You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I am currently a "bear" on Tesla stock, and some of Musk's decisions. I for one just began writing articles on Tesla but began commenting on the stock back last year when the SCTY merger was announced. Yes, I am one of those awful SA contributors. Not all of my articles get published. SA editors are tough as nails to get through. Every article must have solid factual information referenced in the article to back up my conclusions, not always easy to do. There are certainly no "golden boys" at SA.
Readers on this forum need to understand that being bearish on the stock does not automatically equate to a bearish position on the company itself. I personally like the Model S, and may be inclined to pick up a lease return once the facelift models start coming back in. But as I repeat in my articles, I feel the stock is WAY above a reasonable valuation. My articles focus on reasons and issues I think are overlooked by investors that lead me to believe the stock is overvalued. Does everyone agree? Of course not. But that is what makes a market and SA prove themselves daily to be willing to print both sides (or more) of every story). Tesla owners need to be willing to listen to both sides as well especially for those of you who also own the stock.
ValueAnalyst, who some of you have been attacking in this thread, is one of the last perma-bulls on SA. If anything you should be supporting him in his efforts to defend Tesla. But, IMHO he is facing a losing battle. Wall Street is increasingly bearish on Tesla. Tesla's failure to execute on an admittedly much simpler car is troubling to many investors. Which could prove to be a good thing for Tesla car owners. I for one, am predicting a BK reorg that would cleanse the balance sheet and make it simpler for Tesla to raise new capital and grow from here. (think a snake shedding its old skin). If owners got a revitalized manufacturer, that could only lead to better new models, more charging locations, and growth of service facilities. What would be wrong with that?
@Value Analyst
Maybe the list below helps you (and those not familiar with SA) to get some more perspective on how 'balanced' SA is by expanding the list.
The statements of articles of an author regularly containing misinformation is of course just my personal humble opinion.
Strong negative headlines & articles :
Bill Maurer 210 articles on Tesla (out of 1884) all negative, with many containing misinformation
Anton Wahlman 124 Tesla articles (out of 234). All negative. Many contain misinformation
EnerTuition 110 articles (!) on Tesla (out of 345). 100% strong negative (with lots of misinformation)
Paulo Santos 110 articles, all negative. Many contain misinformation
Montana Skeptic 89 articles out of 89. all very negative on Tesla, many contain misinformation. Also 7543 (!!) comments, all on Tesla.
Orange Peel 69 on Tesla, all negative. Many contain misinformation
Mark Hibben 68 (out of 678) Mostly negative
Alberto Zaragoza 23 on Tesla (out of 27) All strong negative.
Donn Bailey 20 articles on tesla (out of 21) All very negative, with several including misinformation
Logical Thought (Mark B.Spiegel) 18 articles, on Tesla (ourt of 55). All very negative, ... misinformation
Bill Cunningham 14 on Tesla (out of 14) All negative
Zoltan Ban 15 articles on Tesla (out of 277) , all negfative
John Petersson 100% negative articles, Count unknown (as many seem deleted)
Tales From The Future 3 articles on Tesla (out of 13) All negative.
Kwan-Chen Ma 5 on Tesla (out of 39) All negative.
And I did not look further back.. So that will be adding up to close to 900 (!!) articles by writers with a strong negative bias towards Tesla / TSLA. A pretty steady stream. And my of those (IMHO) many contain proven misinformation, that at least some kept using after being proven wrong.
Both positive & Negative :
Galileo Russel
Max greve
Feria Investor 7 articles
Mainly positive articles :
- Dalasid 51 (!!) articles on Tesla. Note: only a single one in 2017. Several articles rejected. Those I did read on his own site were much better researched content than most Tesla articles I can find on on S.A.
- Randy Carlson 45 articles on Tesla, out of 47. Note: only 3 in 2017.
- ValueAnalyst 33 articles in Tesla (out of 68)
- Trent Eady 17 on tesla (out of 23)
- Alex Cho 14 on Tesla out of 679)
Edit: - ValueSeeker 11 articles on Tesla (out of 11). Last one in Feb 2014.
It is very clear there is a very strong negative overall bias in the Tesla/TSLA articles & headlines as published on SA.
One also has to take in consideration that over these years the Tesla Share Price went up from 17 to 380. So virtually all these negative articles were giving potential investors reading them most of the time a bad advise.
Hmmm, and that for a website that promises to be an Investor Forum ??
There are a few authors that are able to get positive articles published on S.A, but of these 'big' three, two seem to have given up in 2017. My personal guess would be that this is because to many of their articles got rejected (Dalalsid seems to confirm that).
Edit: I can also very well understand that some serious authors are 'not so enthusiastic' to be published next to articles & headlines like Anton Wahlman's most recent masterpiece.
Having said that, ValueAnalyst please note I applaud your effort !
Links to the articles by Dalasid, Randy and ValueAnalyst:
Siddharth Dalal's Articles | Seeking Alpha
Randy Carlson's Articles | Seeking Alpha
ValueAnalyst's Articles | Seeking Alpha
Found one more:
Valueseeker's Articles | Seeking Alpha
Look at the bolded part of your comment. On one hand, you ask us to consider both side of the story; on the other hand, you are asking us to defend a bullish author. Which one? Make up your mind!
If you haven't figured it out already, there are a lot of very successful investors and traders in this forum. We didn't get to where we are now by being cheerleaders or naysayers.
It seems illogical to believe that what happens concerning Tesla on SA somehow doesn't happen concerning any other company or topic blogged about on SA. That just doesn't make any sense when you understand human behavior.
It's also illogical to think you know statistics or trends or percentages or any measure of 10,000 contributors on SA unless you've actually sampled the majority of those 10,000. Have you? Or are you just guessing based on a handful you've paid attention to?
Probably a good sized portion of bloggers are as you suggest, I'll give you that. What constitutes/defines that portion is up for debate if and until far more in depth research is done.
But a site like SA that nurtures, supports and encourages (yes, it quite obviously does and has done so for YEARS) the atrocious poo flinging behavior that happens in regards to Tesla is a site that dollars to doughnuts (it's a bet I'd take all day long, every day) nurtures, supports and encourages that same behavior in regards to other companies and topics. Tesla isn't a 'one off' on SA no matter how strongly you argue it. I didn't, nor did others who have followed SA and participated for years, fall off the turnip truck yesterday.
Like the general media that have proved time and time again to be lazy (at best) to downright viscous liars (at worst), anything coming out of SA - positive/supportive or negative/critical of one's own position/beliefs - needs to be taken with a grain of salt and thoroughly fact checked and researched independently. And then forgotten because there will never be a Jeopardy trivia question ever asked about anything SA related.
This thread just got interesting now, didn't it...
From your writing I can tell which author you are, and thanks for stopping by. You and I seem to be at the opposite ends of the Tesla spectrum; and as you said, that's what makes a market.
I write, because I enjoy writing, and I believe it makes me a better investor. About half of my articles have been on companies other than Tesla, especially lately, so I wouldn't quite classify myself as a perma-bull or a cheerleader, but I can understand why some would think so. I simply believe in Tesla's future, it is my largest investment, and I estimate that the stock is deeply undervalued by market participants. I've also indicated before that I have a price in mind at which I would sell all of my shares.
In any case, it seems that you and I seem to be on the same page regarding Seeking Alpha. Thank you for confirming my belief that "perma-bears" are likely as frustrated by article rejections as "perma-bulls." I actually think Seeking Alpha is a great platform that allows retail investors to share their ideas, as misinformed as some may be, and the platform is continuously improving. On the other hand, I also understand the reality that a few bad apples will inevitably try to use such a wide-reaching platform to further their agendas.
I hope that you and I can change that in the future by setting an example of mutual respect, and I look forward to continued competition
Somehow I get the feeling that @beachbum77 = @ValueAnalystWhat is interesting is that posters here are just as opinionated as the comments you and I get on SA. I must admit I sometimes wonder if the commentors are the ones being paid. LOL. But I have noticed a steady decline in bull articles, with some writers moving to the "dark" side, and others no longer writing. I actually PM'd two that are still on SA but no longer writing. Both said they moved on to other work and no longer had the time to write. Honestly, I think they just ran out of material or were not making enough money to make it worthwhile. One was very strong on SCTY and solar and had to face the huge SP drop before the merger.
You and I are equally determined in our view of where Tesla's stock price is headed. We just happen to have opposing views. I honestly believe Tesla would be better off going through a reorg to rid itself of all of the debt and excess baggage of current shareholders.
But aside from that as we have discussed before, I see China as a growing threat not only to Tesla but to every other automaker. They know their ICE technology is sub-par but see EVs as a way to leapfrog ahead of the global competition. Their ability to dictate what their citizens buy could tilt the scales against the western competition.
To the other comments on this thread about misinformation. BULL.
I have only had one point in one article challenged to SA by a reader. I responded to a call from the SA managing editor by emailing my back up and updating my article to clarify my position on the topic by citing the links. Since then, I am much more careful to document my stated facts with the necessary back-up. I have had at least a half dozen articles rejected. One for not giving Tesla adequate time to respond (they never did). Another half dozen had to be re-written several times before publication. SA is much stricter on publishing than any other publication/site I know of. FYI: Forbes for one, does no review at all for spelling, grammar, or content. So SA writers or investors need to be very careful in using articles from some of these sources of information. I only do when I can cross-reference the information from a second source.
Look I know a lot of you guys in here may not like to hear negative information. But suck it up. SA is about the stock market. Not a fanboy site for Tesla owners. If any of you actually have facts in evidence to dispute any author's piece, challenge the article. SA will be better for it. No one should take any article at face value. Verify every link and seek out your own sources of information. That is what smart investors do. Unless you have the resources of the Warren Buffett's you are always going to be at a disadvantage, but that does not mean you cannot be profitable over the long run.
I write for SA and others because I like writing and I am an active investor. As opposed to many others, ValueAnalyst, Montana, and I all have real money positions long or short. That is conviction. We do not take pot shots from the sidelines like many of our anonymous commentors. I actually wrote one positive article recently on Tesla and got crucified in comments which I just ignored. If I see something good I am just as apt to write about it as something I see that is a problem. Long term, I still see Tesla headed for a downward spiral and eventual crash. If I ever see enough evidence to change my mind you can believe I will.
For those of you who believe all of the gung-ho Wall Street analysts, good luck with that. They were all gung-ho about Lehman Brothers, Countrywide, and the overall real estate market in early 2008 too. Look where that took investors.
Somehow I get the feeling that @beachbum77 = @ValueAnalyst
What is interesting is that posters here are just as opinionated as the comments you and I get on SA. I must admit I sometimes wonder if the commentors are the ones being paid. LOL. But I have noticed a steady decline in bull articles, with some writers moving to the "dark" side, and others no longer writing. I actually PM'd two that are still on SA but no longer writing. Both said they moved on to other work and no longer had the time to write. Honestly, I think they just ran out of material or were not making enough money to make it worthwhile. One was very strong on SCTY and solar and had to face the huge SP drop before the merger.
You and I are equally determined in our view of where Tesla's stock price is headed. We just happen to have opposing views. I honestly believe Tesla would be better off going through a reorg to rid itself of all of the debt and excess baggage of current shareholders.
But aside from that as we have discussed before, I see China as a growing threat not only to Tesla but to every other automaker. They know their ICE technology is sub-par but see EVs as a way to leapfrog ahead of the global competition. Their ability to dictate what their citizens buy could tilt the scales against the western competition.
To the other comments on this thread about misinformation. BULL.
I have only had one point in one article challenged to SA by a reader. I responded to a call from the SA managing editor by emailing my back up and updating my article to clarify my position on the topic by citing the links. Since then, I am much more careful to document my stated facts with the necessary back-up. I have had at least a half dozen articles rejected. One for not giving Tesla adequate time to respond (they never did). Another half dozen had to be re-written several times before publication. SA is much stricter on publishing than any other publication/site I know of. FYI: Forbes for one, does no review at all for spelling, grammar, or content. So SA writers or investors need to be very careful in using articles from some of these sources of information. I only do when I can cross-reference the information from a second source.
Look I know a lot of you guys in here may not like to hear negative information. But suck it up. SA is about the stock market. Not a fanboy site for Tesla owners. If any of you actually have facts in evidence to dispute any author's piece, challenge the article. SA will be better for it. No one should take any article at face value. Verify every link and seek out your own sources of information. That is what smart investors do. Unless you have the resources of the Warren Buffett's you are always going to be at a disadvantage, but that does not mean you cannot be profitable over the long run.
I write for SA and others because I like writing and I am an active investor. As opposed to many others, ValueAnalyst, Montana, and I all have real money positions long or short. That is conviction. We do not take pot shots from the sidelines like many of our anonymous commentors. I actually wrote one positive article recently on Tesla and got crucified in comments which I just ignored. If I see something good I am just as apt to write about it as something I see that is a problem. Long term, I still see Tesla headed for a downward spiral and eventual crash. If I ever see enough evidence to change my mind you can believe I will.
For those of you who believe all of the gung-ho Wall Street analysts, good luck with that. They were all gung-ho about Lehman Brothers, Countrywide, and the overall real estate market in early 2008 too. Look where that took investors.
Tesla is an anomaly. In my 40+ years of stock market investing I have never seen a bubble stock like Tesla. I believed it was already overvalued last year at $190. So, of course, I still believe so today. We all know Tesla lost somewhere between $400-500M in Q3. We will find out for sure in 11 days. God forbid, it gets to breakeven because the stock would surely tank at that point with a P/E of 300 or more when compared to AAPL @ 17 and GM @ 7.
What's going on at Seeking Alpha is that a short list of "favored" article writers are allowed to get away with stuff which other article writers are not. These "favored" article writers include Anton Wahlmann, who has a history of securities fraud charges, and Montana Skeptic, who is hiding his identity probably for nefarious reasons. Both of them have written large numbers of easily verifiable lies; "Montana" has violated all of the "tone" requirements which are supposedly enforced at Seeking Alpha; and despite being reported repeatedly, they are allowed to continue defrauding readers.
Presumably because they get a lot of clicks.
This is a classic, and very nasty, form of corruption where the "favored boys" are allowed to get away with massive policy violations which nobody else can get away with. Traditionally "favored boys" are allowed to get away with sexual harassment and graft, but in this case it's dishonesty, libel, and fraud.
The rest of Seeking Alpha has perfectly decent articles on many stocks. Even on Tesla, if you avoid these "favored boys", you can find reasonable articles (Alex Cho is fine) -- but the management has given some sort of shield to the "favored boys". I consider this reprehensible on the part of Seeking Alpha management, and this *non-neutral* behavior exposes Seeking Alpha management to direct legal liability from anyone who was misled by the fraudulent articles from the "favored boys".
That's what's going on as far as I can tell.
Anton Wahlman. Article after article of nonsensical irrelevant garbage.There are certainly no "golden boys" at SA.
<snap>
Why don't you write an article for all of us about all of this misinformation you seem to believe writers and editors are pushing to the investment public? Making accusations is easy. You will find backing them up with facts is much more difficult.
You could not be more wrong. I was a corporate CFO for years before buying my own company. And for the record, I am NOT Value Analyst.Based on your writing and previous statements, I know that you have heavy industry experience, but the sentence I bolded above tells me that you may not have much finance/accounting experience and experience with investing in growth companies. Am I at least somewhat right?
I meant an article you could post right here for the rest of us to read. Just give us five examples of what you consider "mis-information"I think the reason you see less bullish Tesla articles on SA has absolutely nothing to do with authors running out of positive material. I seriously doubt you believe that yourself.
(And the shareprice is decided by the market and does not need to be defended by anyone).
Many pages on many forums and websites are filled daily with positive Tesla developments.
As Neroden very well stated, SA uses very different standards for certain authors. SA does it allow articles of very low quality by these authors, that are full of clear lies and personal biased assumptions presented over and over as facts. I can imagine some writers do not want to be published among those articles. Should I be a professional writer, I would definetly not like to be mentioned or seen with A. Wahlman who has a history of dishonest investment advises and refuses to answer any questions commenters have on his articles.
I am also aware of quality articles that were positive about Tesla and rejected. IIRC dalalsid has some experience there.
You are very naive if you think someone can write an article to address the misinformation in the Tesla articles by these writers and get such an article published. Even comments proving lies by some authors with references to the supporting facts get deleted.
P.S. I am sure you have no reason not share the name you use to publish and comment on SA here, so we can read, fact-check and comment on your articles here. There is a unique level of Tesla knowledge on this forum, it can only increase the quality of your SA articles.
You could not be more wrong. I was a corporate CFO for years before buying my own company. And for the record, I am NOT Value Analyst.
Not even remotely accurate. VA and I have opposing views on Tesla stock. While I have high hopes for the company overall, their stock price is ludicrous.Somehow I get the feeling that @beachbum77 = @ValueAnalyst
I meant an article you could post right here for the rest of us to read. Just give us five examples of what you consider "mis-information"